[lug] DSL Technical ?'s

Harris, James James_Harris at maxtor.com
Tue Sep 4 18:16:52 MDT 2001


Thanks for describing all of this to such length.  I sure got a lot of
techincal crud out of a it and I'd be willing to bet other's did too.

Jim

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Timothy Klein [mailto:teece at silverklein.net] 
> Sent: Saturday, September 01, 2001 00:13
> To: lug at lug.boulder.co.us
> Subject: Re: [lug] DSL Technical ?'s
> 
> 
> Jeremy,
> 
> I think you are running primarily into a business decision on 
> Qwest's part.  The technology is sure there, but Qwest has 
> decided it is not cost efective to supply DSL to just anyone 
> who asks.  They are picky about who they will supply to.
> 
> Now, at the lengths you are mentioning for your line, there 
> is a high possibility that you are not on a copper pair at 
> all, but rather a "pair gain" pair.  This means that your 
> line first rides to a central distribution point (Cross Box) 
> as a digital signal on some kind of T1-type carrier ( that 
> might be conditioned copper, or fiber).  Usually 96 virtual 
> "pairs" are put onto a few actual copper pairs (can't 
> remember the number, something like 4 pairs) by using a 
> digital signal rather than the plain old low frequency analog 
> pots signal.  At the cross box, these digitial signals are 
> converted back the to the analog signal that your phone line 
> expects, and then another, much shorter segment of copper 
> connects your house to the cross box.  DSL will not work over 
> one of these pair gain arrangments, as it basically tries to 
> do the same thing as the pair gain is already doing:  put a 
> higher frequence digital signal on the line.  Now IDSL is 
> just an ISDN line, that behaves like a DSL.  The speed you 
> were getting on your SDSL is only slightly faster than ISDN, 
> so I would not be at all surprised if you were on some kind 
> of ISDN-type arrangement, eg, the DSL was working through a 
> pair gain system.
> 
> Which companies will choose to offer you DSL is largely based 
> on econimics, non techicalities, though.  Any one *could* 
> offer you some kind of high speed net access, the question is 
> do they *chose* to.  Does the company think it is a good 
> business decision to do so?  Covad, Rythyms, Jato and the 
> like were hungry for customers, and thus willing to deploy 
> whatever technology they could to get a customer.  Qwest is 
> an entrenched monopoly, so they can afford to be much pickier 
> about which customer's the choose to serve.
> 
> So, to summarize, DSL needs a clean copper pair, less than 
> 18K long, with less than a few thousand feet of bridge tap, 
> and no loid coils.
> 
> An ISDN line needs either the above, OR a pair gain pair.  
> There are a couple of variety of DSL's that are really just 
> ISDN type services that will work this way.
> 
> The other new piece to the puzzle is the now deploying 
> 'Remote DSLAMS'. This is how DSL will be offered at the full 
> speeds when the customer is served by pair gain.  It moves 
> the DSLAM to a box out next to the cross box.  Thus your pots 
> signal goes to the CO on one channel, and you DSL goes to the 
> ATM network on another.
> 
> Any way, I'm babbling.  I know a lot about this stuff, as I 
> work with these issues all day at a telecom. 
> 
> If you were interested, you could email me off list, and I 
> could tell you exactly what your situation was if you were 
> willing to give me the phone number or address involved.
> 
> HTH
> 
> Tim
> 
> * Jeremy Hinegardner (jeremy at mlug.missouri.edu) wrote:
> > Hi all,
> > 
> > Some background info:
> > 
> > I have a few ?'s for the sage's of DSL.  As of recently I
> > had a Rhythms 192kbps SDSL line to my home.  Since Rhythms has 
> > basically gone belly-up my ISP (Megapath) is going the motions to 
> > switch me over to Covad.  But it seems that Covad is unable 
> to provide 
> > SDSL service to me and they are installing an IDSL line.
> > 
> > I called Qwest and they say they are unable to provide me
> > DSL service at all.  But according to their documetation 
> > http://www.qwest.com/disclosures/netdisclosure459/co_data.html
> > my CO (BLDRCOMA) has RADSL equip installed.
> > 
> > I've checked the distances, estimates vary from 15500' to
> > 16500' and both fall well within the range of Qwest's  
> > maximum for ADSL (17500').
> > 
> > So now for my questions:
> > 
> > 1. Why can't Qwest provide any DSL service? Is it because (a)
> >    They don't provide SDSL service at all and don't have the
> >    equipment at the CO? or (b) bridges/tap/etc on my line
> >    to prevent ADSL from working?
> > 
> >    Part of this question is why cannot Qwest just use the
> >    existing copper pair that is in place for my SDSL and
> >    treat it as a phone line to run ADSL over?  Both types
> >    can run over the same line configuration right? I mean
> >    I basically have an additional phone line at my house
> >    when they installed the SDSL circuit right?  It just
> >    happens to plug into Rhythms' DSLAM instead of Qwest's.
> > 
> >    An additional interesting note on this one is I was 
> >    originally with Jato last fall (which also went out of
> >    business) and from what they said, my SDSL circuit was
> >    actually installed by Qwest.
> > 
> > 2. Why can't Covad provide SDSL service to me.  They do
> >    provide SDSL service.  Is it because they just don't
> >    take SDSL service to 16000'?  And if that is the case 
> >    What is the technical reason why?  If Rhythms was able
> >    to provide a satisfactory SDSL service to 16000' why
> >    is Covad unable to?  They are both in the same CO right?
> > 
> > 3. I know there are several ISP's who are on this list and
> >    I would like to know if any of them would be willing to
> >    try an experiment.  Basically the Homebrew SDSL option
> >    talked about at http://www.odessaoffice.com/sdsl.htm
> > 
> > I've tried getting these answers (1 and 2) from a few other sources 
> > but with no avail.  I really appreciate the level of information 
> > available on this list and I hope you guys can help me out.
> > 
> > Thanks,
> > 
> > -jeremy
> > 
> > ============================================================
> > Jeremy Hinegardner		    jeremy at mlug.missouri.edu
> > _______________________________________________
> > Web Page:  http://lug.boulder.co.us
> > Mailing List: http://lists.lug.boulder.co.us/mailman/listinfo/lug
> ==============================================
> == Timothy Klein || teece at silverklein.net   ==
> == ---------------------------------------- ==
> == "Hello, World" 17 Errors, 31 Warnings... == 
> ==============================================
> _______________________________________________
> Web Page:  http://lug.boulder.co.us
> Mailing List: http://lists.lug.boulder.co.us/mailman/listinfo/lug
> 



More information about the LUG mailing list